Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armor Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Russian T90 vs. US M1A2 Abrams
achtpanz    6/14/2004 3:59:14 AM
Russian T90 vs American M1A2 Abrams - Which is better? If these tanks fought in battle, which would suffer more casualties, which one is superior? What are their advantages? Any information would be helpful.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Buzz       3/14/2011 10:40:42 PM

BTW, I have no idea where you got a "chain link fence" was the best RPG protection, but slat armor has been used since WWII and has proven itself effective against RPGs numerous times in Iraq.
Son, you should look up the test reports and read them yourself. A couple of years ago the army actually admitted that the slant armor only protected the stryker from anti-personnel RPGs and I can guaranty that you have never even seen one of those puppies. It looks like an ond Pinapple Grenade. Which leads me to ask why does the stryker need to be protected from a simple grenade? And yes the army did test chain link fencing and it did work better than slant armor.
The big reason the slant armor is ineffective is that for shape charges like heat rounds to acheive optimal penetration they must detonate 2.5 x the diameter of the warhead. The front 1/2 of the RPG warhead is hollow and is meant to set off the charge at that optimal distance. Although the RPG has no problems penetrating the hull of the stryker, the cage actually assists the warhead in exploding at the optimal distance to acheive max penetration. Those are facts. I'll try to find some of my old pictures of the strykers in hiding.

 
Quote    Reply

Buzz       3/14/2011 10:45:18 PM








Santa, I have much more experience with BTRs and LAVs than with actual stykers but the fact is the strykers are better than hummers but not by much in my opinion. If they are so damned great why do they try to hide the the extent of the damage being inflicted inflicted on them from congress. The E-7 is probably being truethful in what he is telling you but not being accurate. A freind of mine in theater sent me apicture of a styker taken out by an anti personnel mine. It disabled the front tire and had to have a tank retreiver come get it. That bird cage has actually saved lives because it makes the vehicle so top heavy that when it gets hit at high rates of speed it rolls and disapates the blast energy. And there are plenty of pictures out ther in cyberspace showing the strykers being keep under lock and key because the army didnt want any of them getting damaged until the last two bdes were paid for. Ask him if they are still forcing soldiers to reenlist for styker or get out.





Well an LAV is not a Stryker and has absolutely nothing to do with the Stryker other than sharing the same family line. Haha, and if you think  a Styker is a minor improvement over an uparmored HUMVEE then you are free to ride those death traps, I'll stick with the Stryker.

 

 

I highly doubt a Stryker was disabled by an anti personnel mine. They will run with 4 flat tires while the other 4 are on fire. I'm also going to call BS that the army is keeping them under lock and key. I know for a fact they deploy and are constantly being used, especially as QRFs.


 

And "renlist for Stykers" or get out? LOL, where do you hear this garbage? Since when was there a "Stryker indentifier" for 11B that would guarantee you get Strykers? LOL, who is feeding you this crap?


Please feel free to believe the BS about the run flats. The tire throws off at about the 2 mile mark and that nice little steel rim spins. And please learn to read. I said they were kept under lock and key the first year they were in Iraq.  I also remember the dumbasses that padlocked the back doors because they were so afraid someone would open it and throw a grenade in. It took an entire crew drowning in one that slid into a ditch to get them to stop that.

 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:46:08 PM

Santa I neglected to point out a very good comment you made that the Styker is not meant to be an IFV. That is a very true statement unfortunately, our leaders decided to use it in the role of an IFV because it is cheaper to operate than a Bradly. I have asked many styker soldiers what vehicle they were comparing the styker to that made them like it so much and all of them said the same thing. They were comparing it to a hummer. See the privious posts as to the inappropriet use of equipment. The russian failed to learn their lesson on that in afghanistan and as a result they lost a lot of people and equipment.


I'm going to call BS on this statement too. Soldiers who were in Iraq when humvees were used there said Strykers were miles ahead of humvees is so many ways. They are faster, had more protections, way better systems, and "brought more ass to the fight". 12 guys use 3 humvees. A driver has to stay with each vehicle and someone has to watch the radios, and the gunners if you want to leave them there. That gives you 4-5 dismounts. A whole squad fits into 1 stryker and you can just leave the driver, gunner and radio so you have 9 dismounts. So whoever said they were similar to uparmored humvees is full of crap.
 
And comparing our losses in Iraq to Russian's in Afghanistan has to be the biggest joke of all. We have lost less than half the people they did while fighting 2 wars at the same time. If anyone has died in a Stryker unit, I will bet they weren't in the vehicle when they sustained their injuries.
 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:50:14 PM


Son, you should look up the test reports and read them yourself. A couple of years ago the army actually admitted that the slant armor only protected the stryker from anti-personnel RPGs and I can guaranty that you have never even seen one of those puppies. It looks like an ond Pinapple Grenade. Which leads me to ask why does the stryker need to be protected from a simple grenade? And yes the army did test chain link fencing and it did work better than slant armor.


The big reason the slant armor is ineffective is that for shape charges like heat rounds to acheive optimal penetration they must detonate 2.5 x the diameter of the warhead. The front 1/2 of the RPG warhead is hollow and is meant to set off the charge at that optimal distance. Although the RPG has no problems penetrating the hull of the stryker, the cage actually assists the warhead in exploding at the optimal distance to acheive max penetration. Those are facts. I'll try to find some of my old pictures of the strykers in hiding.



Yes, it won't stop RPGs that are designed to detonate early. But we don't have any type of add on armor that can do that. So if you can put on more armor without having to build a whole new vehicle I'm sure the Army is all ears. They did good with the stryker because even though the RPG may penetrate the hull, it's has spall liner so the crew will survive, and that's what's important. It's a taxi, not a tank.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:54:59 PM

Please feel free to believe the BS about the run flats. The tire throws off at about the 2 mile mark and that nice little steel rim spins. And please learn to read. I said they were kept under lock and key the first year they were in Iraq.  I also remember the dumbasses that padlocked the back doors because they were so afraid someone would open it and throw a grenade in. It took an entire crew drowning in one that slid into a ditch to get them to stop that.




Going to call BS on that too. There is no where to pad lock the door on the back. It's just a flat handle bar.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/14/2011 10:57:54 PM
h**p://www.army.mil/features/strykerOE/stryker2-(rear-view).jpg
 
Yes, I will believe the "BS" about the run flats. That's personal experience from people who have been in theater and served with the vehicle. I don't know where you get your info from but it's obviously crap.
 
Quote    Reply

GeorgeSPatton    Hit the nail on the head   3/14/2011 11:50:44 PM
George, Something you may not be aware of is in 1973 the army made the decision that that our tanks would no longer serve the duel purpose mission of infantry support and anti tank. They removed all of the HE rounds for the tanks and loaded them with AT rounds because of the huge numarical advantage of tanks the warsaw pact countries had. The M-1's design was based on being able to engage soviet tanks at long ranges and then survive mutiple hits and still be combat capable.
That was exactly my point.
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    My ears perked up.   3/14/2011 11:53:23 PM
Wonder about some things said here:
 
 
Notice the RAMP?
 
H. 
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/15/2011 12:05:56 AM
There's also top hatches. I just assumed that when he said rolled into a river or whatever, it flipped upside down and the electrical system for the ramp shorted. But yes, the whole pad locking the door in the back is way too ridiculous.
 
Quote    Reply

SantaClaws       3/15/2011 12:20:13 AM

Wonder about some things said here:

 


 

Notice the RAMP?

 

H. 


Wait, are you suggesting that the stryker has no door on the back?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics